ML20203M548
| ML20203M548 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/28/1998 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203L331 | List: |
| References | |
| ACRS-R-1745, NUDOCS 9803090061 | |
| Download: ML20203M548 (8) | |
Text
_ _ -.. - _.
a t
NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH t
A Report to the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate 4
by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards i
ofthe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission February 1998 e
R-1745 POR
~
a The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by Section 5 of Public 1.sw 95-20g, requires that the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safegucrds of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission report annually to Congress on the statua of nuclear reactor safety research. This is the 1997 report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
This report concludes that severe budget reductions are causing substantial deterioration of the intomationally respected capability of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to conduct a forward looking, efk lve safety research program. As we described in the report of 1996, this deterioration is occurring at a time when the U.S. nuclear power industry is undergoing substantial changes in response to economic deregulation made possible by the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
These changes may have safety implications that must be addressed by the Commission.
l Research is needed to ensure that the agency effectively addresses these changes. The deterioration in research capabilities is also inhibiting the ability of the Commlnsion to continue the evolution of nuclear reactor regulation to a risk-informed, performance based structure. Finally, the Commission's core capability in nuclear waste research has been dramatically reduced.
Further reductions could inhibit the Commission stats effectiveness and timeliness in conducting reviews of the nuclear waste repository program and cause delays and additional expenditure of National resources.
Background
The use of nuclear energy to provide electricity to the civilian population was pioneered in the United States. This technology has now spread among the developed nations of the world and all Indications are that it will also be adop!od by developing nations in the future. Today, the majority of the 450 operating nuclear power plants and plants under construction throughout the world are based on U.S. technology.
It was, of course, well recognized in the initial applications of nuclear energy for civilian purposes that the health and safety of the public must be adequately protected. Because there was at the time so little eyperience with such a new technology, very conservative, prescriptive regulations emphasizing a defense-in-depth approach to safety were established to control the e,ivilian use ni 1
f nuclear power and the management of nuclear waste. Overty conservative regulations that do not have safety significance seryh only to inhibit the fruitful application of the technology. Congress recognized, however, that even the most stringent regulations might not anticipate all the safety issues of a new technology. Congress, therefore, encouraged safety research to further develop and refine the regulation of nuclear power. Recently, Congress has er.couraged all regulatory agendes, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to assess and refine regulatory actions to ensure that the costs and burdens imposed by regulatory acticas are commensurate with the derived societal benefit.
Since the cariy days, nuclear power has become an essential, reliable contributor to the Nation's energy supplies. Today, nuclear energy provides about 20 percent of the overall electrical energy in the country, and it does so with ve,y ',ow emissions of particulate and gaseous pollutants. There are regions of the country where nuclear power is the dominant source of eL,ctrical energy. In some countries, nuclear power is an even more important source of electrical energy. Along with its role in the development and dissemination of this technology, the U.S. has become the world leader in nuclear safety. This leadership is due in no small part to the thorough safety research that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission has been able to perform in the past. This safety technology contributs: significantly to the acceptance and purchase of U.S. nuclear technology by other nations. Well researched, well maintained standards ano regulations for the nuclear fuel cycle, such as those developed by the Commission, reduce tne potential for the proliferation of nuclear weapons materials as the worldwide use of nuclear power expande, The situation Today While use of nuclear en~gy in the United States is not growing, the U.S. nuclear industry is by no means static. The industry is, in fact, undergoing substantial change. Changes due to modem technical developments such as the ' digital revolution' in the instrumentation and control of nuclear reactors are to be expected and will improve both safety and efficiency if property implemented.
The changes that occur as nuclear power plants age must be addressed to ensure continued safety and rollsbility. Of more importance, and a definite source of greater uncerialnty, is the change in the nuclear industry caused by economic deregulation. The pressures of increased compotrtion will produce changes that could well have safety implications. Certainly, steps taken 2-
'by the industry to reduce manpower and to enhance the productivity of the remaining personnel need to be scrutinized closely and researched for safety.11gnificance. Similar comments can be made about steps being taken by the nuclear industry to extend the lifetime of nuclear fuel and to diversify the suppliers of nuclear fuel for individual plants.
l 9
The nuclear industry also faces the challenge in the future of a growing volume of spent nuclear fuel. Repositories for the disposal of nuclear wastes are prerequis}tes for the susta'.ned use of nuclear power. Radioactive disposal facilities will also be crucial for continued use of nuclear materials in medicine, other Industries, and ecientific research.
If regulation is not to stifle economic and technical improvements in the U.S. nuclear industry, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission must be in a position to modomize its safety regulations, Modomization will also be essential if the United States is to maintain its world leadership as a supplier of both nuclear technology and nuclear utety technology. There are now about 3,000 reactor years of operational experience in the commercial use of nuclear power. The Commission has fostered through research the development and refinem6nt of systematic methods to collect operational safety data, to assess these data, and to combine the data sets into integrated evaluations of the safety of nuclear power plants. On tha basis of the data and analyses, the Commission is now undertaking an important evolution of its regulations to a risk-informed, performance based structure. The Commission is the leader, in fact, among this country's regulatory agencies and within the world's nuclear regulatory agencies at rational regulation that i
focuses efforts on topics of the greatest safety significance and assures that regulations are commensurate with the derived societal safety benefits.
Over the last year, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has initiated changes to its regulations and practices that encourage risk-informed considerations to be taken in the development af technical specifications for nuclear power plants, in-service inspection and testing of safety
.ystems, and graded quality assurance programs for safety systems. Pilot applications of these efforts to improve regulations are being conducted and the results are now being assessed.
These moves tcward risk informed regulation are expec ed to improve safety and agulatory efficiency. They are also expected to reduce costs to the nuclear industry and to the American public. For example, the recent move to performance-based containment leak rate testing is 3
+
O expected to produc(. d stvings approaching a billion dollars over the projected lifetimes of eusting plants.
Ir.novations being made today by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in its regulations are made possible by the research that has been done in the past. The Commission has, in fact, a good record regarding the prudent identification of important safe +y research issues and the effective conduct of research. During the last year, for, example, past results from the research program t. ave enabled Me Commission to assess industry arguments concoming required inspections of reactor w* el welds. Potential prot,eems identified by the research program have led to requirements 8or additional attention to the qualificaon of motor-operated valves in existing nuclear power plants. Past research has also made possible the certification of two new nuclear power plaret designs: the Genera: Electric Advanced Boiling Water Reactor and the ABS-CE I
System 80+ pressurized water reactor. The research program is contributing tc the evaluation of the advanced light water reactor riesign now being proposed by Westinghouse for certification by the Commission.
The Crisis in Nuclear Safety Research Despite the substantial changes the nuclear it iustry is undergoing, the budget available for the conduct of regulatory ac0vities by the Nuclear Rr gulatory Commission is decreasing. In the face of declining resources, priority, cf course, must be given to operational actMties such as effective monitoring and inspection of licensees and the disposition of current licensing actions. Recent, well-publicized events at particular nuclear facilities have underscored the priority that needs to be given to such continuing vigilance. Consequently, many of the longer term benefits that could come from research have had to be deferred. The resources available for research have decreased disproportionately in the last several years. The rssearch program has sustained redur%ns of 23 percent in igg 6,1g percent in igg 7, and 16 percent in 19g8. The declining resources available for needed research are having impacts now. Examples include:
A program to monitor industry research and to anticipate initiatives that may require o
revisions of regulations in the future has not been undertaken. The Nuclear Regulatory
- Commission is being forced into a position where it must wait and react to industry 4
i
proposals and thereby delay implementation of innovations even if these initiatives improve safety. Delays have already been encountered in the implementation of revised accident' l_
source terms and new dosimetry methods because the Commission cannot afford to-complete needed research. Delays emused by deferred retsarch on risk-informed pilot projects have distressed the nuclear industry whose hopes for improved regulations in the l
i near future have begun to dwindle.
i i
o Research needed to evaluate the potential for safety significant human errors, especis!!y j
as the nuclear industry ' downsizes" staff in response to economic deregulation, remains i
in th danning stages despite continuing evidence from plant operations that human errors i
are important contributors to off-ncrmal events at nuclear power plants.
4 o
The technology has not been developed to extend syt'3matic evaluations of risk from i
normal power plant operations to shutdown and low power operations despite evidence that
. these are modes of operation that pose risk to the public comparable to that from power l
operations, o
Research needed to evaluate licensee proposals to extend the lifetime of reactor fuel, whl:h will also reduce the societal burden of spent nuclear fuel, remains to be performed, Safety research that will be needed to regulate the use of mixed oxide fusis as a means for o
the disposal of the Nation's excess weapon grade plutonium has not been initiated.
lhe program to develop a technical understanding of public health and safety risks posed o
by severe reactor accidents may have to be terminated prematurely. Research on the safety and risk n!gnificance of fires has been deferred The ability of the Comraission to leverage dwindling research resources by collaboration in initiatives by other countries with more ambitious research programs may be jeopardized.
o
-Validation of industrial standards to use in place of Govemment-formulated regulations will be slowed.
v
'w--
,y-
,,=
...y-.-
.,-m,,
~,,,
c,-w
7----.-__-. - -.- -. - -
o, Key elements of a well designed research program to assist in the licensing of a high level
[
o nuclear waste repository are beg adversely impacted by Congressional funding reductions. Without the research results that reduce uncertainties, it may be necessary to add conservatism, s'id thus raise costs for the design of the waste repositories to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety.
o Fifteen of the generic safety issues identified since the 1979 amendments to the Energy l
Reorganization Act of 1974 have still not been resolved.
i Deficiencies in the research program tnat the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission can afford to maintain will affect the performance of line organizations responsible for ongoing regulaMry sctivities with licensees. Even today, requests or ' user noods' for research by line organizations are being withheld because it is known that the reduced research program cannot respond to such requests. Of concem now are limitations developirg in the ability of the research program to j
conduct systematic examinations of the effectiveness of existing regulations and to identify I
additional areas for risk informed, performance based improvements. There are also concems about the availability of financial resources to sustain safety research on emerging digital technologies. Without advanced safety research, application of these sursrior technologies to the i
instrumentation and control of nuclear power plants will be delayed, along with attendant improvements in safety and plant performance.
l Conclusions The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the safe regulation of nuclear power plants have 4
benefited from research done in the past. Reductions in the Commission budget hrve forced serious cutbacks in the research program and deterioration of the research capability. The Commission still needs a research program. It certainly needs a viable program to be able to evaluate proposals independently and to assess safety arguments advanced by the industry. It needs a stronger research program to continue the evolu3on of its safety regulations. The Commission also needs a research program to meet new obligations it is undertaking. Notable among the new obligations is the implementation of safety regulations for a geologic repository for 6-s.
r-r a,,w, vm--,,,,-
s.-
spent nuclasr fuel. The agency is also conducting a pilot program to assess the viability of undertaking the safety regulation of certain Department of Energy nuclear facilities.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission capacity for research is no longer commensurate with the agency's regulatory obligations. It will not be possible to maintain core competencies in all the areas that have historically proven to be of recurring importance in safety and regulatory actions by the egency.
Mode.nization of regulatior,s will be delayed because research cannot be l
padormed to ensure that appropriately high levels of safety are maintained. Responses to Industrial initiatives taken as a result of competitive presnures will be slowed without a broader research program. Delay in the implementation of cost competitive innovations may well force the nuclear industry to retire more plants prematurely, and the Nation will incur all the societal costs such unnecessary retirements entail. The development of a high level nuclear waste repository is facilitated by the availability of well-researched safety regulations arid analytical tools for licensing. Uncertainties left when research cannot be done because of funding constraints may delay the development of the repository or force We addition of costly conservatism.
In summary, there are benefits to the entire society that may be delayed or even lost as the research capability of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission deteriorates in response to l
declining financial rasources.
7